And now just to upset everyone further, let's compare ROF the manuals teach under 'normal' conditions (ie what the men were trained to do 'all day', as Arlequin says)
British: Fire in bursts of 4-5 rounds. An average ROF is one magazine per minute (ie 28 rpm). Effective range = 900m
Polish: Fire in bursts of 3-6 rounds. An average ROF is 60 rpm. Effective range = 1,200m (large targets, 800m small targets)

So, remind me, why is the Bren-armed British team so vastly superior to the Polish team with a BAR?

Of course, part of the answer lies in the Bren's ability to rapid fire in an emergency for a short time - up to 4 mags/minute or 112 rpm (for 2.5 minutes at which point there is a 6-10 second break while the barrel is changed). The BAR can only increase its practical ROF to about 80 rpm. However, given that in similar circumstances the MG-34 lets rip with something like 250 rpm, this makes the difference between the two allies fairly negligible, in my opinion, in the grand scheme of things.

Watch the whole video. Later it shows the 2 man drills. Yes it is a weapon capable of being operated by one man but..Everyone I know that has experience thinks of it as a Gun Team weapon that can be operated by one man. I was taught that it was at least a two man weapon even in a later REMF unit which didn't have a role in which it would have been conducting section attacks. 2 men if available make it a much more efficient platform.

The British Section L/Cpl is the Gun commander even in the Paras, by the Manual, like I said you can operate it solo, in the 80s we used one in the Rifle Team to bolster firepower. However, see my earlier posts, a 3 man gun team is much more effective in terms of putting down a greater volume of controlled, directed fire. There is in practice a marked difference.

Ive used a GPMG solo, we did so again to bolster a Rifle Team or when patrolling. It was generally in a 3 man gungroup. Identical to the BREN.

The 1944 British Infantry Manual Section Attack is virtually identical to that still taught up to the adoption of the SA80. Even the SLR and GPMG changed very little tactically.

The earlier Battle Drill is the same apart from the number of men in a Section.

Look at the video of a British Platoon Aqlequin has put up. It shows a 3 man Gun Team. It shows the BREN gun team not directly taking part in the Close Assault. The Commandos changed that proving that the BREN could be used effectively in CQB and post war the BREN and GPMG took place in Assaults fired from the hip or even the shoulder in built up areas/ trench works.

Even wartime Commando TOE shows a 3 man Bren Team.

In actual use many units adopted different practice. Once you lost men its perfectly feasible that you drop to one man team but honestly the advantage of a N0.2 makes it desirable to keep it so as long as possible.

And now just to upset everyone further, let's compare ROF the manuals teach under 'normal' conditions (ie what the men were trained to do 'all day', as Arlequin says)
British: Fire in bursts of 4-5 rounds. An average ROF is one magazine per minute (ie 28 rpm). Effective range = 900m
Polish: Fire in bursts of 3-6 rounds. An average ROF is 60 rpm. Effective range = 1,200m (large targets, 800m small targets)

So, remind me, why is the Bren-armed British team so vastly superior to the Polish team with a BAR?

Of course, part of the answer lies in the Bren's ability to rapid fire in an emergency for a short time - up to 4 mags/minute or 112 rpm (for 2.5 minutes at which point there is a 6-10 second break while the barrel is changed). The BAR can only increase its practical ROF to about 80 rpm. However, given that in similar circumstances the MG-34 lets rip with something like 250 rpm, this makes the difference between the two allies fairly negligible, in my opinion, in the grand scheme of things.

The main factor is that the BREN can keep that rate of fire up for a lot longer than the BAR whose barrel would be worn out in pretty short order if it kept up that ROF. That barrel change is fundamental. It is far more important than cyclic rate or even feed device, in a squad automatic weapon. In the initial stages of a firefight its going to be evens but gradually the BREN will win out (presuming no casualties). In tactical combat "Winning The Firefight" is the foundation stone of tactics, you cannot proceed with successful maneuverer until you have won it, and then you have to maintain it. This is where a BREN will win over a BAR, a MG34 over A BREN you will be able to maintain a greater ROF and win the firefight.

Im quite confident that the FN MAG GPMG is vastly superior to the BREN in actual use, no question, on paper its not that different.

Combined with good tactics, Firepower is a fight winner the Germans got it, the USMC got it, the Commandos got it later everybody got it. The more automatic weapons you can bring to the party that you deploy "effectively" win over.

But the in game dice difference is negligible, the Wz.28 is probably taking the Belgian FM.30 as example a 4D weapon the BREN is a one man 4D weapon!!

The main question for me is crew and their roles in the game. Like I said we can talk weapon stats all day and have differing opinions but the FP Dice are there I think the BAR is a 3D weapon if the BREN is a 4D weapon when operated by one man Id argue the FM.30 as a one man weapon is not as effective as a BREN.

Its how you represent the role of the extra crew members that is the main question. As the rules stand crew add 2 dice to a Mag Fed gun and 3 to Belt Fed, none for a BAR and the amount of crew this takes varies from list to list and the lists do not correspond to what the actual manuals lay down.

Do you think the guy with the carbine feels a touch inadequate?
[/quote]

The M1 Carbine was very well thought of in British SF circles, it was in fact the standard issue weapon of the SAS, 1944 onwards. It was very popular in the SBS, and even used by some Parachute units in the Med Theatre.

Its light weight and SA function combined with 15 rd mag was seen as adequate and generally preferred over the SMLE in the Close range firefights the SAS/SBS engaged in.

The main fault of the M1 carbine was its reliability due primarily to poor magazines. Experienced US users replaced the mags as often as possible.

It was in Korea that the Stopping Power question became prominent, and it was said that its rounds wouldn't penetrate the quilted jackets and greatcoats of the enemy. This became popular fiction, in fact many rounds were passing through and through the enemy but due to the bullet design it wasn't immediately having an effect.

Its interesting that many men preferred a .45 ACP SMG over the M1 and considered them much harder hitting weapon.

The .30 Carbine round is ballistically superior to the .45, its pretty close to the .357 Magnum round which nobody thinks inadequate to a .45. of course what was happening is that enemies hit by SMGs were taking more rounds.

In Rhodesia the RLI used the MAG 58 as a one-man weapon, often in a 'walking fire' type manner. Vets attest to no loss of firepower in action, but their actions were extremely short and sharp. The rest of 'RhoDef' used the 'gun group - rifle group' model because it enabled no loss of firepower over a longer engagement period. Only the Brens and R1HB tended to be used solo, but they were substitutes in some units, or personal weapons in others. The R1HB wasn't even a popular weapon with most.

An assistant helps is the point, whatever the weapon. Our battles happen in isolation, but there's nothing to say that our guys haven't been fighting before the game takes place and ready ammo is in short supply. By insisting on an assistant who cannot use his rifle, we model this, along with firepower reduction when the gunner is the last man standing.

I'm convinced that a two-man BAR crew should be FP 5, if used solo a 3. I'm also convinced that there are Mag LMGs that are inferior in their role to the BAR, yet automatically get FP 6, despite their failings. Certainly the 240 rpm Chauchat shouldn't be the equal of the 450-650 rpm BAR in the AR class. The M1 Garand can be fired faster semi-auto than the Chauchat's auto rate. The Chauchat's only saving grace is its 30 round mag.

Likewise the 'move or fire' and FP 5 of the Lewis Gun feels right. Not because of its rof, but because the drum was a bit heavy to handle and photos show both gunner and assistant involved in fitting them. They didn't come in detachable pouches either, so short of putting the drums in the dirt, each had to stay in the special LBE of the guys carrying them, or their carry bins, until they were required.

It was very well thought of in the RUC too back in the day. It was suggested that the low-stopping power myth can be attributed to poor marksmanship, rather than the weapon. U.S. Special Forces liked the selective fire M2 just fine before the M16 came along too. Plenty of folk in the U.S. still own them for dealing with coyotes etc., they're cheaper than AR-15s and do the job just as well to their mind.

In fact in a WWII Zombie Apocalypse, given a free choice, I'd pick it up over anything else.

I was absolutely comfortable with the BREN/GPMG as a one man weapon. Like I said we often used them so. And there is a tactical niche for them so operated. But there is a jump in in effectiveness once you add a crew.

Yes the Chauchat is case so is the BREDA M30 all though not mag fed..

The Italian Army is my favourite wargames force. But the Breda M30 was pretty dire. The Italians classed it as a AR and were well aware of its shortcomings.

In the name of Roma by Chris Stoesen available on the TFL website classes it as a BAR.